. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2010 May 1.

Published in final edited form as: J Abnorm Psychol. 2009 May;118(2):256. doi: 10.1037/a0015619

Table 2.

Results of statistical analyses contrasting ERPs evoked by congruous and incongruous video endings between patient and control groups

Analysis	Contrast	df	F-value by Time-Window of Interest

			225-325ms	325-525ms	600-1000ms
Midline:

Omnibus	C	1,30	5.433^*	10.199^**
	C × R	4,120	3.742^*	5.621^**	15.506^**
	C × G	1,30			7.521^*
	C × R × G	4,120			3.296^*

Planned comparisons by Region
Anterior-frontal	C	1,30	4.960^*	6.564^*	13.296^**
	C × E	2,60			4.455^*
Frontal	C	1,30	8.836^**	13.413^**
	C × G	1,30			4.336^*
Central	C	1,30	5.435^*	11.061^**
	C × G	1,30			8.265^**
Parietal	C	1,30		7.454^*	6.280^*
	C × G	1,30			10.454^**
Occipital	C	1,30			8.475^**
	C × G	1,30			7.625^**

Lateral:

Omnibus	C	1,30	7.467^*	8.537^**
	C × R	1,30	6.891^*	9.743^**	27.368^**
	C × G	1,30			7.632^**
	C × R × G	1,30			5.020^*

Planned comparisons by Region
Frontal	C	1,30	10.770^**	13.773^**
	C × H				5.612^*
Parietal	C	1,30			13.929^**
	C × G	1,30			11.143^**

Note: df – degrees of freedom;

C – Main effect of Congruence;

C × R – Congruence by Region interaction;

C × E – Congruence by Electrode interaction;

C × G – Congruence by Group interaction;

C × H – Congruence by Hemisphere interaction;

C × R × G – Congruence by Region by Group interaction.

^**

p < .01;

p < .05